Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
The Usage of the Non-Sequitur "4e is a Tactical Skirmish Game"
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 5996172" data-attributes="member: 6696971"><p>2 - 4 are not trying to convince. In order, provoking, preaching to converted, celebrating amongst fellow detractors or some other form of catharsis (opining for the sake of opining). </p><p> </p><p><em>- Do they believe they are being willfully provactive? </em></p><p><em>- Do they believe they are stating this position just as reinforcement amongst fellow believers (preaching to the choir)? </em></p><p><em>- Do they believe they are celebrating the opinion, communally, with other detractors or some other form of catharsis such as "opining for the sake of opining on something they feel strongly about"? </em></p><p> </p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>That was the point. Some commentors have stated that they feel that stating this offhandedly is a good-faith statement (to what end? Good faith must imply to convince otherwise it is gratuitous.). They have stated that the statement is not caustic to discourse (despite an extraordinary amount of evidence to the opposite) and that it doesn't derail threads down into edition war venom. So, who to best ask then 4e advocates (as they are the ones reacting...either emotionally or intellecturally is irrelevant...the effect on discourse is the same). If you are soliciting the spcific opinion of a demographic (which by definition excludes those outside of the demographic), you should not include within the sample those who are either not 4e advocates or are 4e detractors. </p><p>The poll must be self-selecting as it is soliciting the opinion of a specific demographic in order to answer the specific question:</p><p> </p><p> </p><p><em> "What is the consenus reaction among 4e advocates when a commenter states '4e is just a tactical skirmish game?'"</em></p><p> </p><p> </p><p>So what do you ask them specifically? </p><p> </p><p><em>- Do they believe it is a good faith effort to convince a 4e advocate that 4e mechanical ruleset does not encapsulate the RPG experience? </em></p><p><em>- Do they believe they are being willfully provactive? </em></p><p><em>- Do they believe they are stating this position just as reinforcement amongst fellow believers (preaching to the choir)? </em></p><p><em>- Do they believe they are celebrating the opinion, communally, with other detractors or some other form of catharsis such as "opining for the sake of opining on something they feel strongly about"? </em></p><p> </p><p> </p><p>There is no need to include corner case reactions that are not helpful to the survey as it just adds needless noise to the signal; The signal being <u>4e advocates reaction to detractors stating 4e is just a Tactical Skirmish Game.</u></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Manbearcat, post: 5996172, member: 6696971"] 2 - 4 are not trying to convince. In order, provoking, preaching to converted, celebrating amongst fellow detractors or some other form of catharsis (opining for the sake of opining). [I]- Do they believe they are being willfully provactive? - Do they believe they are stating this position just as reinforcement amongst fellow believers (preaching to the choir)? - Do they believe they are celebrating the opinion, communally, with other detractors or some other form of catharsis such as "opining for the sake of opining on something they feel strongly about"? [/I] That was the point. Some commentors have stated that they feel that stating this offhandedly is a good-faith statement (to what end? Good faith must imply to convince otherwise it is gratuitous.). They have stated that the statement is not caustic to discourse (despite an extraordinary amount of evidence to the opposite) and that it doesn't derail threads down into edition war venom. So, who to best ask then 4e advocates (as they are the ones reacting...either emotionally or intellecturally is irrelevant...the effect on discourse is the same). If you are soliciting the spcific opinion of a demographic (which by definition excludes those outside of the demographic), you should not include within the sample those who are either not 4e advocates or are 4e detractors. The poll must be self-selecting as it is soliciting the opinion of a specific demographic in order to answer the specific question: [I] "What is the consenus reaction among 4e advocates when a commenter states '4e is just a tactical skirmish game?'"[/I] So what do you ask them specifically? [I]- Do they believe it is a good faith effort to convince a 4e advocate that 4e mechanical ruleset does not encapsulate the RPG experience? - Do they believe they are being willfully provactive? - Do they believe they are stating this position just as reinforcement amongst fellow believers (preaching to the choir)? - Do they believe they are celebrating the opinion, communally, with other detractors or some other form of catharsis such as "opining for the sake of opining on something they feel strongly about"? [/I] There is no need to include corner case reactions that are not helpful to the survey as it just adds needless noise to the signal; The signal being [U]4e advocates reaction to detractors stating 4e is just a Tactical Skirmish Game.[/U] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
The Usage of the Non-Sequitur "4e is a Tactical Skirmish Game"
Top